Great Janitor:show me: Great Janitor: EA can charge $60 for the disk, then $15 to unlock each team on the disk

Wow, I thought it was overpriced to begin with, but this is real? Holy shiat, glad I was never interested in getting it.

No. Well, the $60 for the game is real, plus more money for unlocking parts of the disk. The $15 to unlock each team I made up as an example to show just what EA could do and how the fans would still buy.

EA, if you do this, you're a dick. Secondly, it was my idea, I expect a cut of the profits.

I was perusing through the Playstation Store a while back and wandered into the Madden 201x DLC. They have stuff like $2.99 for some coach or something that can watch for player trades, or something like that. Some mundane task that you can pay to have automated. And there's quite a few of them. It's actually kinda sickening.

I own quite a few games that require DRM, Arkham City, Heroes of Might and Magic 6, etc. Here's the issue:

Games with DRM:1.I launch the game.2.It brings me to a page to log into, but not the game. Usually a page that lists the games I own by the developer that requires a username and password.3. I log in... if I can remember the randomly generated username assigned to my account name, but I can't use my real account name, just the alias they assigned me for my protection.4. Reset my username on a 2nd website.5. Reset my password on a 3rd website.6. Set the interface to always remember my username and password... again.7. Log in.8. Close down 'special offers' for new games or DLC's.9. Turn down speakers as the developer's fancy logo screen appears (that can't be turned off) and hope my speakers aren't now cracked.10. Go through the distributor's fancy logo screen11. Intro to the game comes on. Sometimes I can actually escape out of this!12. Turn volume back up as the game volume is so much lower than the wall splintering loud logo splash screens13. Start playing the game

Steam Games:1. Launch Steam from the toolbar directly to my games library2. Click play3. Escape through logos4. Play the game

GoG Games:1. Double click the shortcut2. Play the game

My understanding of Pirated Games:1. Double click the icon2. Play the game

OR

1. Mount the .iso in an Emulator2. Play the game

For convenience, it seems Steam, GoG and piracy is the way to go if ou want to play now. The games I have with DRM have barely anytime played on them for the above mentioned reasons. I will forget about the hassle of logging into them and decided to play them every now and again. I am greeted with the DRM crap. 7 times out of 10, I just turn the game off and go play something else. Hell, I have 130+ games on my Steam account and a couple dozen directly installed from GoG (that I import into Steam for launching).

I have also given up on playing games at launch. Back in the day it was neat as you'd get weird bugs that made the game interesting at times, infuriating at other times, and then you'd go to the developer's website and download the patch. Then the developer's started putting patch buttons in their games, so you could choose to install the patches. All in all, it was a much easier time.

About 10 years ago, people started literally paying to be able to beta games for the developer (purchase discs and have them shipped to you, and the like) and the developers and distributors began to realize the gamers are foaming at the mouth for the game. What would happen if they shipped the game incomplete? They tried it, people biatched, but they still bought and played the games. Then they started selling DLC's for the games as extras, little boosts to the game that would enhance it's playability without giving the player an unfair advantage. Then they started with holding integral parts of the game, and offering it as Day 1 DLC. Hell, discs are being shipped with DLC on it and they have to pay to unlock code on the freaking disc!!

Who is to blame? We, the gamers are to blame. Or at least the younger generation that's been raised in the internet era of everything being available immediately to them. The rush to be first, to somehow stand out above the rest of the riff raff is a powerful motivator. We so want to be the first to accomplish something, earn an achievement or unlock something special, we're clamoring for the game NOW NOW NOW. These developers and distributors know, that even though we complain, biatch, make petitions and slaughter their game scores, we'll still buy it. We'll still play it. We'll be IN THE GAME complaining about the game, but won't log out of the game we're complaining about!!

How many games have been threatened with class action suits? D3? SWTOR? WoW? now SimCity? How many of those Class Action lawsuits have been picked up by lawyers? How many have gone to trial? All these gamers demanding recompense for the game not working are dumb. They feel they are entitled to whatever it is they claim over the emotional distress of the game not working. Flawed Product. Unusable product. "If I bought a car and it didn't work, blah blah blah..." Apples and oranges my friends. If you think for one second EA doesn't have this all wrapped up legally within the EULA you didn't even scan through while furiously clicking Accept, you're deluded enough to think you have a legal leg to stand on.

So, keep on thinking it's the developer's fault, and I'll be back for the next big game launch to remind you exactly why you are dumb for having done this yet again. I'm sure you think it'll be different next time, because it's another developer with another distributor, but the sole fact you purchased this game simply proves it's a viable resource for the developers and distributors to to utilize to release their game.

1) EA can eat a dick, mainly because they were bad at DRM, not because of the DRM itself.

2) looks like another thread where people front the old false choice:

I can either (a) get X unlawfully, or (b) get X lawfully but with lots of annoying things attached (DRM, Cable TV to wtach HBO show, trailers, commercials, etc.).

This of course forgets the key third choice:

(c) i can go without.

I just find it really funny that in every one of these threads there is the sense that people are entitled to a thing in exactly the way they want it. If they cannot buy it exactly the way they want it, they will obtain it unlawfully. That is not a justification . . . its not even really an excuse.

If you think EA sucks, you can not buy EA's products. You have that right. And if enough people do that, EA will either fold or will need to do what people want. There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.

Anyone else find it slightly ironic that in the midst of that long complaint about how much EA sucks and paying for features sucks, he pays lip services to using consoles to play... an EA game & praises the DLC install?

Rincewind53:Great Janitor: How bad is the video game industry doing? I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office. Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500. Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand. Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts. Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews. Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford. Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop. Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims). They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers). There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only. All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.

Gamestop is dying because of digital distribution, Amazon, and the general price point for new video games. End of story.

Gamestop's fate has very little to do with the do with the health of the video game industry as a whole.

thank you. the business models are shifting. more and more people are gaming. you're seeing a shift from the industry focusing resources on "serious" gaming (consoles, PC) to the casual, mobile crowd. a means that cannot be attained by going to a used game store.

Teiritzamna:1) EA can eat a dick, mainly because they were bad at DRM, not because of the DRM itself.

2) looks like another thread where people front the old false choice:

I can either (a) get X unlawfully, or (b) get X lawfully but with lots of annoying things attached (DRM, Cable TV to wtach HBO show, trailers, commercials, etc.).

This of course forgets the key third choice:

(c) i can go without.

I just find it really funny that in every one of these threads there is the sense that people are entitled to a thing in exactly the way they want it. If they cannot buy it exactly the way they want it, they will obtain it unlawfully. That is not a justification . . . its not even really an excuse.

If you think EA sucks, you can not buy EA's products. You have that right. And if enough people do that, EA will either fold or will need to do what people want. There is, however, no moral justification for saying EA's policies are dumb, so i will unlawfully obtain their product.

Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.

Great Janitor:The video game industry is about to die, and the problem is the software companies attempts at ending piracy and used gaming that's going to cause it, sadly, they are too stupid to actually realize it, and when the video game industry tanks, they will go down blaming pirates while ignoring failures like this.

How bad is the video game industry doing? ...

Rebuttal: The kickstarter for Planscape: Tides of Numenera Reached its funding goal of 900k in 6 hours, and is sitting at 2.1 million after 1.5 days.

Shadowrun Returns put out an alpha gameplay video that looks BETTER than most of the production/beta crap we've been seeing. Not only that, it has shown up on a couple of 'most anticpated games of 2013" lists

Wasteland 2 recently put out a gameplay video showing off some features and gameplay, as well as also getting onto the same lists as Shadowrun Returns.

The days of large video publishers are likely to wane somewhat, but there are good games out there to find (and fund!) if you keep an ear to the ground. The funding and distribution systems are changing.

CPennypacker:Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.

While that is a point, it is not the point i was addressing. It was the point made throughout the thread that DRM is why people obtain the game unlawfully. As if they had a right to it. Saying: "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game" is a 100% morally/legally justifiable statement. Saying, "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game but instead will torrent it" is not.

EA had $3.58 billion in net revenue in 2011 and $4.14 billion in net revenue last year. They'll get their servers up and running, issue an apology for the inconvenience, and wait for everyone to start liking the gameplay more than hating the launch.

Teiritzamna:CPennypacker: Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.

While that is a point, it is not the point i was addressing. It was the point made throughout the thread that DRM is why people obtain the game unlawfully. As if they had a right to it. Saying: "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game" is a 100% morally/legally justifiable statement. Saying, "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game but instead will torrent it" is not.

See also [art.penny-arcade.com image 800x408]

As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off. Do enough to combat piracy to make pirating a game annoying enough to the average person and move on. Anyone who puts any more effort into it wasn't going to give you money for the game anyway. Its not a lost sale.

Piracy is wrong. I don't do it and neither should you. Doesn't justify the publishers pissing off the people who are actually opening their wallets to buy their crap.

PanicMan:I play games when I DONT want to interact with people. I don't want facebook integration. Or leaderboards. Or resource sharing. I want to be THE hero of the world, not just another guy who clearly isn't the best at whatever.

The only thing online integration does is make my experience less meaningful. It adds an element of competition where it doesn't belong. That's not fun. Games are supposed to be fun.

Dr. Goldshnoz:It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.

Yep. If it was really that important to a gamer to make a stand on a game interface, they shouldn't buy it. If DRM is really that bi of an issue, they shouldn't buy it. Let the game companies know it's an unacceptable practice that you refuse to support.

BUT!

We're gamers. So, we buy the game, tell everyone how much it sucks, demand recompense for the game in one form or another for being put out by the game, and this whole time they are playing it. Everyone knew this was going to be a constant connection game, and with history proving how bad this is, they bought it anyway, then have the nerve to be shocked that it doesn't work. They proclaim their shock while pointing out the failures of every other DRM launched game. It's quite the ironic statement, really.

I digress, though. If people stopped buying constant connection/DRM games, the developers would stop making them. Plain and simple. Too bad gamers are slaves to their own desire.

So keep on thinking this is going to change because the launch was a failure. They made quite a huge stack of cash on this, and though EA greatly desires to fix this black eye, the sole fact it sold so well proves to their company this is the way to go.

Thank you gamers for making this the new future of gaming, you only have yourself to blame.

CPennypacker:As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true. It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance. Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation. However, that is a totally different question. Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options. (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid). All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

HST's Dead Carcass:Dr. Goldshnoz: It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.

Yep. If it was really that important to a gamer to make a stand on a game interface, they shouldn't buy it. If DRM is really that bi of an issue, they shouldn't buy it. Let the game companies know it's an unacceptable practice that you refuse to support.

BUT!

We're gamers. So, we buy the game, tell everyone how much it sucks, demand recompense for the game in one form or another for being put out by the game, and this whole time they are playing it. Everyone knew this was going to be a constant connection game, and with history proving how bad this is, they bought it anyway, then have the nerve to be shocked that it doesn't work. They proclaim their shock while pointing out the failures of every other DRM launched game. It's quite the ironic statement, really.

I digress, though. If people stopped buying constant connection/DRM games, the developers would stop making them. Plain and simple. Too bad gamers are slaves to their own desire.

So keep on thinking this is going to change because the launch was a failure. They made quite a huge stack of cash on this, and though EA greatly desires to fix this black eye, the sole fact it sold so well proves to their company this is the way to go.

Thank you gamers for making this the new future of gaming, you only have yourself to blame.

Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.

They do this every time. They did it with every Battlefield (Bad Company 2, BF3, BF1943) game I bought. The servers were overloaded for too long and then they said more people bought it than they expected and the servers couldn't handle the load. FU EA. Say what you want about Activision but I never had a day one problem playing COD.

Talondel:show me: rufus-t-firefly: This guy (from the Amazon reviews) has a better letter:

Dear EA/Maxis/Origin:

You killed the child inside me.

The one who remembers playing SimCity. The *first* one. Who recalls fondly a childhood of Sim games, spending countless hours on my Compaq 486 sx33

Ha! I had a 486 DX33! Suck it, dude!

I played all of the old Maxis games (SimCity, SimAnt, RoboSport) the way they were meant to be played. On a Mac! (with a tiny little built in black and white monitor)

I played Sim City on the Amiga500 at a friends house. Then begged my grandparents to buy it for me on the C64.Good grief, it sucked compared to the Amiga version. (same thing happened with Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge)

I am a long time fan of the series, even had it as original on the C64 (and not many people can say that) and I still play SC4 on giant custom maps. But I will not be buying this one.

Teiritzamna:CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true. It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance. Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation. However, that is a totally different question. Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options. (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid). All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

Oh agreed, but can you really blame people from groups 1 and 2 rooting for group 3 considering how pissed off they are, whether they bought the game and are pissed at how they are being screwed or didn't buy the game and are pissed at missing the actual game? At some point for me, even though I don't pirate, it comes down to, well fark you EA, you deserve it.

Mechdemon:Great Janitor: The video game industry is about to die, and the problem is the software companies attempts at ending piracy and used gaming that's going to cause it, sadly, they are too stupid to actually realize it, and when the video game industry tanks, they will go down blaming pirates while ignoring failures like this.

How bad is the video game industry doing? ...

Rebuttal: The kickstarter for Planscape: Tides of Numenera Reached its funding goal of 900k in 6 hours, and is sitting at 2.1 million after 1.5 days.

Shadowrun Returns put out an alpha gameplay video that looks BETTER than most of the production/beta crap we've been seeing. Not only that, it has shown up on a couple of 'most anticpated games of 2013" lists

Wasteland 2 recently put out a gameplay video showing off some features and gameplay, as well as also getting onto the same lists as Shadowrun Returns.

The days of large video publishers are likely to wane somewhat, but there are good games out there to find (and fund!) if you keep an ear to the ground. The funding and distribution systems are changing.

If they would have called this game SimCity Online, there wouldn't be this uproar. Instead Maxis and EA tried to sucker the fans of the previous games into buying this jumped up version of Farmville. Serves them right.

CPennypacker:Oh agreed, but can you really blame people from groups 1 and 2 rooting for group 3 considering how pissed off they are, whether they bought the game and are pissed at how they are being screwed or didn't buy the game and are pissed at missing the actual game? At some point for me, even though I don't pirate, it comes down to, well fark you EA, you deserve it.

Personally, no. I suppose I have an issue with them because they are then used in the next round of terrible corporate justifications for ridiculous and annoying DRM. Each party in this routine just gets to ratchet it up while the rest of us who just want to buy a good product get to stand there getting more disgusted.

Additionally, the self-satisfaction on both sides involved rankles.* EA acts big and dumb and arrogant, claiming that they had to do this, that there was no other way. Whilst across the country self important internet anarchists get to feel like they putting it to the man when they instead are just unlawfully obtaining products.

Teiritzamna:CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true. It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance. Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation. However, that is a totally different question. Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options. (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid). All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.

Dr. Goldshnoz:It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't.

Yup, it is ridiculous that no product ever produced by a major corporation failed to sell well because of flaws such that people didn't buy it. Yes-sir-ee, thank god no company has ever gone out of business/been bought out due to a bad launch or terrible product. Especially in entertainment.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket.

Dr. Goldshnoz:I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat.

Well this would be because that is a regulated feature - such that there is not a real market anyway.

And to finish off - your statements were addressing a point that i wasnt really making. I was merely saying that the sentiment that obtaining a product unlawfully as a form of protest against a poor quality product is not morally justified because there is the actually justified action of simply not purchasing the thing.

So I know a lot of people felt burned by ME3, and I hated the ending just as much as anyone (more numb to it now), but the "Citadel" DLC is awesome. It's nothing but pure fanservice, and that's what makes it great. It's the ending that people wanted, but at the same time there's no way they could've put it in the main game. This is DLC done right.

I was soooooo excited for ME3. And I figured I'd give Origin a shot because I like a free market and competition is essential to the free market. Then I got EA'd.

I had bought the game, but they also offered DLC for sale on farking LAUNCH DAY. Not only that, but the DLC was content that absolutely should have been part of the main game. On top of that - despite having stated numerous time before that you wouldn't have to - you had to play the multiplayer they had tacked on in order to unlock all the possible conclusions to the game.... which was the SECOND launch day crass cash grab - being that multiplayer had a whole other system for you to pay even more money for in-game content that they were trying to force you to participate in.

So yeah... that was the first and last time I buy a game through Origin. I'm also happy to avoid EA games in general when I can.

Teiritzamna:CPennypacker: Its not a justification of piracy, you're missing the point. They are showing how badly paying customers get screwed over by trying to deter theft while the thieves have a better experience.

While that is a point, it is not the point i was addressing. It was the point made throughout the thread that DRM is why people obtain the game unlawfully. As if they had a right to it. Saying: "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game" is a 100% morally/legally justifiable statement. Saying, "you know what, this DRM is ridiculous so I shall not buy this POS game but instead will torrent it" is not.

See also [art.penny-arcade.com image 800x408]

The fact that you can have that conversation is proof that DRM does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless.

Pixiest:Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

That's not a very good comparison. The whole point of an MMO is to play with other people, where SimCity has mostly been a single player game. Also, Blizzard at least refunded game time back in the early years of WoW when the servers were still fairly unstable and unplayable for days at a time. EA's strategy is "Too bad, we already have your money. Now GTFO"

/always online single player games are terrible and should have never come to pass//I'm looking at you D3

CPennypacker:Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.

There are no new games in development. None. Every game is either a sequel, prequel or a straight rip off of another already established game. They keep making them because we keep buying them.

I wholeheartedly agree SimCity 2013 is not worth $60. I played the Beta and realized this was not a game I would buy at full price. The last game I bought at full price was Civ5. It was worth every penny. I also bought all the DLC's at full price. I am as much to blame as anyone else for the DLC's being a viable outlet for revenue when it should have been added to the game initially. I felt the game warranted the output of cash.

Nearly every other game I've bought in the last 3 years has been during a Steam sale. The only other games I bought at full price was Duke Nuke 'Em Forever and Homefront. I say this to simply prove: we as gamers are the problem. Neither DNF nor Homefront were worth their price for the game. They were short, they were nothing more than a new skin on an established genre, and as usual with FPS games, they direct attention away from the extremely short stories to laud the 'rich PVP environments'.

I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this game be the same? I really want to buy it because I really want to play it, but how disappointed am I going to be in another short story $60 game? I'm all but convinced it's another sale buy, just like all other games.